If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I happen to agree with your statement except please name another country where blacks have reached a higher level of freedom and prosperity than the US. History is replete with people who have been enslaved. It is also replete with those that have risen either because or in spite of it. I do not believe future outcomes are preordained by past events, those that do, in my opinion, are practicing a reprehensible form of elitism.

In my mind, if whites are being discriminated against by all of these programs, you would expect to see blacks overrepresented in all of those jobs and college seats. They aren't. There are lots of explanatons for the fact that whites remain favored in the outcomes of hiring, college admission, and contracting decisions. However, what no one can prove is that they end up being favored because they are somehow better according to some miraculously objective measurement.

Jeff, this paragraph contradicts every other thing that you just said. Do you realize that? In every other paragraph, you stated that the black population is so much smaller, therefore statistics are skewed, blah, blah, blah. If the black population is so much smaller, why should the number of blacks and whites be even close to the same in said jobs? Obviously, if whites are 80% of the population (your stats) then 80% of the people in college and said jobs should be white, if things are truly equal.

I know for a fact that my dad was overlooked for a job at his previous company due to affirmative action. A lesser qualified black man was selected over him. How is that right? I don't care what the color is, if the black man was more qualified, he should have gotten the job. If not, my dad should have. If a mexican or a Jew or a german was more qualified, give them the job.

The black community has to stop idolizing rappers and sports stars. So many times, you hear that is the only way out of their life. I know it is not easy to do well in school living in the conditions that many of them live in, but that doesn't mean that you have to be a POS.

I don't want to get too deep into this argument, because I have very strong feelings about this topic. I hate racism and reverse racism (because it is approved of) absolutely disgusts me. Do not ever try to paint me as a racist.
________Cat Exercise Wheel

Jeff, this paragraph contradicts every other thing that you just said. Do you realize that? In every other paragraph, you stated that the black population is so much smaller, therefore statistics are skewed, blah, blah, blah. If the black population is so much smaller, why should the number of blacks and whites be even close to the same in said jobs? Obviously, if whites are 80% of the population (your stats) then 80% of the people in college and said jobs should be white, if things are truly equal.

I know for a fact that my dad was overlooked for a job at his previous company due to affirmative action. A lesser qualified black man was selected over him. How is that right? I don't care what the color is, if the black man was more qualified, he should have gotten the job. If not, my dad should have. If a mexican or a Jew or a german was more qualified, give them the job.

The black community has to stop idolizing rappers and sports stars. So many times, you hear that is the only way out of their life. I know it is not easy to do well in school living in the conditions that many of them live in, but that doesn't mean that you have to be a POS.

I don't want to get too deep into this argument, because I have very strong feelings about this topic. I hate racism and reverse racism (because it is approved of) absolutely disgusts me. Do not ever try to paint me as a racist.

My comment is that representation in jobs and colleges would be proportional. They are not. Representation continues to favor whites. I believe each of us is personally responsible for our lives. However, that does not mean that some people did not receive more than their share of advantages and that others didn't get the short end of the stick. It is simply not useful sitting around blaming others for your condition when you could be doing things yourself to improve your life. That has actually been Obama's continuing message to blacks and one that got him in trouble with many black leaders during the primaries.

However, I believe that affirmative action, beginning with improved access to education and health care from birth, is essential to overcome the long term impact of institutional racism and institutionalized poverty. It will remain needed until color and economic circumstances of birth are essentially unrelated to long term performance.

The world is filled with individual injustice. A bright child born into a semi-literate poor family, regardless of color, will suffer the consequences of his birth for his entire life. A below average child born into a wealthy, highly educated family will enjoy privileges of his birth for his entire life. Both of these sets of consequences are unearned and reflect personal injustice.

My alma mater practices affirmative action. For many years it practiced it to increase the admission rate for white males as they began to be displaced by females -- part of an arrangement with alumni who were concerned that coeducation would reduce the slots available to alumni children. Today it continues to practice discrimination that favors whites on a de facto basis by giving preference to alumni children, who are from predominantly white families. It also practices affirmative action to admit more economically disadvantaged student since they are known to have had fewer education opportunities to obtain the educational exposure that would permit them to compete head to head academically at the time of admission. However, that dpoes not change the fact that most admitted freshmen come from the elite private schools rather than the public schools that most people, regardless of color, go to. Efforts to expand public school enrollment directly affect the likelihood that students with better grades and better test scores will be admitted. Is that wrong? Or does it create a class of students who are more reflective of the diversity that exists in our society and by doing so provide a richer education experience for all?

This is going to sound strange when I say it -- I respect what Pat Buchanan is saying right now. He is clearly one of the only guys on the conservative side of the spectrum with enough gall to actually say what this backlash from the teabaggers and town hall protesters is really about. Now, that being said, the fact still remains that I completely disagree with his viewpoint on nearly every level imaginable, yet there is something to be said for him actually speaking in candid terms about what many on the Right are undoubtedly thinking. The point being that I just appreciate Buchanan's honesty, regardless of how opposite his viewpoint may be.

"We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each othersí throats.

One half of America sees abortion as the annual slaughter of a million unborn. The other half regards the right-to-life movement as tyrannical and sexist.

Proponents of gay marriage see its adversaries as homophobic bigots. Opponents see its champions as seeking to elevate unnatural and immoral relationships to the sacred state of traditional marriage.

One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Old heroes like Columbus, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King and Cesar Chavez.

But the old holidays, heroes and icons endure, as the new have yet to put down roots in a recalcitrant Middle America.

We are not only more divided than ever on politics, faith and morality, but along the lines of class and ethnicity. Those who opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and stood by Sgt. Crowley in the face-off with Harvardís Henry Louis Gates were called racists. But this time they did not back down. They threw the same vile word right back in the face of their accusers, and Barack Obama.

The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture."

Buchanan chose to elevate Stonewall Jackson and Robert Lee as American heroes. Which was clearly on purpose. That statement is perhaps one of the most intriguing in his text, made more so by the juxtaposition of these Confederate traitors to Martin Luther King. If ever there was a person who truly understood the American ideal, King is one of them on a short list along with Lincoln, Jefferson, Kennedy, Roosevelt, and Obama.

One thing is clear in Buchanan's article -- he is not dancing around what he believes this fight between the Right and the Left is really about; the soul of America. Where progressives see multiculturalism as an advancement of the American ideal, conservatives like Buchanan see it as America's downfall. This message was woven throughout many of President Obama's campaign speeches, and even implied during his speech on health care last week. It truly is an interesting dynamic. Many of us see the election of Barack Obama as one of our greatest modern examples of American exceptionalism. As Obama has implied, along with many others, that only in America could a person like Obama have ascended to it's highest office. Moreover, America is the only nation in the Western world that has elected a person of color to be it's President or equivalent. So, it is America, the nation with perhaps the most treacherous past in the West when it comes to racism; also the first nation to truly rise above it. On the other hand, the people who are so angry at these protests see the complete opposite. They long for the iconic days of the 1950's, when America's only identity was white and Christian. The days when it wasn't politically incorrect to talk about people who were different from them. I see it so blatantly over here in Afghanistan. Many of my fellow Soldiers, brave as they are, have a level of hate for the "difference" in the people who we call our enemy. Where I see the Taliban as an enemy, many people see all Afghans and Iraqis as "dirty, nasty Haji" (That's a direct quote) who do not deserve an ounce of our respect. When I point out to people how that attitude and demeanor is offense to me, an American soldier, they look at me like I am the "PC police". Many of these people see the election of Barack Obama as a further erosion of what America truly is.

The reason that I respect Buchanan, at least on some rudimentary level, is because at least by him bringing to light his viewpoint in full, we can actually begin to have a more civil debate on its relevance. What makes Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter so much more treacherous, is that they mask their beliefs, which are nearly identical to Buchanan's, in a veil of pseudoism. They attempt to hide behind a deniability clause, so when someone calls them out on what we all know to be true, they deny the claim as ludicrous. We know what Hannity means when he shows pictures of Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, and Michelle Obama with the subtitle "radical extremists". We all know what Fox and Friends' host Brian Kilmeade means when he says that America has been mixing with too many "species" and should be more pure like Sweden. There's is no real substantive difference in the belief of many of these conservatives and Buchanan. The only caveat being Buchanan will actually put his beliefs out there for all to see.

My goal here is not to argue the merits of Buchanan's argument. It is clear that he is living in a past that perhaps never even existed. What is more important is that he convince more of his conservative compadres to come out and say what we all know they really mean. Perhaps only then will progressives be able to call the right-wing out on the ideal that truly defines their cause -- "Do you hate the right people"?

One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

I agree 1000% with your first paragraph. In fact, that is one thing that I am totally thrilled about that Obama has done. He has, on numerous occasions, called out the black community to be better than they (stereotypically) are. I applaud him for that. I recall his speech on Father's Day when he called black men to be dads, not just fathers. Yes, it ruffled a few feathers, but it is the truth. I hope he continues to call anyone out he actually deserves it. He can get away with saying things that no other president in history would have been able to, simply because of his color. I am glad to see that he is using that to his advantage in that respect. Can you imagine if W had said the same thing?! It would have been no less correct, but he would have been crucified.

It is disgusting that Obama's comments got him into trouble with black leaders. It shows that Al, Jesse, Jeremiah, etc do not want equality as MLK did. King wanted EQUALITY. The 'leaders' these days want handouts and revenge. We will never have equality as long as that is the attitude.

I tend to disagree with you about money being such a large influence on the life of a child. Yes, it does play a role in how someone turns out, but I believe that the biggest factor is parenting. Money goes hand in hand with that to an extent...I think that lower income families tend to have parents that don't teach the same values as higher income families. (Note: not an absolute statement) If parents raise their children with work ethic, respect and discipline (among other things) they will stand a much better chance of getting a good education and good jobs, regardless of color or economic status.

If you go to a public school, you can fairly easily pick out which children have a stable home life and which children do not. The majority of those without are black.

Take a look at the divorce rates of whites vs. blacks. Better yet, take a look at the number of single mothers by race, or the rates of children by multiple fathers by race. The numbers don't lie. Blacks clearly have less stable home lives while growing up, due to the said factors, among other things. Of course, a single mother with a few children is going to have a lower income than married parents in a good home.

But is the problem low income? Or is that just a symptom of morals, values, work ethic, and respect not being taught by the single mother's parents, therefore leading to pregnancy at age young age (typically) and unsuccessful relationships throughout life? What kind of example is being set for young black children?

No amount of affirmative action, reperations, free education, etc is going to fix that. It has to start at home and parents have to be willing to change the status quo. Do you make someone want to change their life by giving handout after handout? Or do you do it by making them realize they will have to be responsible for themselves and their children?
________CuteSophie

You assume that hate defines the right wing cause? Wow. I don't even know what to say.

It's the Liberal Way.

It can be a "million man march" anf gets all kinds of soft coverage, even when the main speaker spews absolute racist bilge.

But hey, let close to 2 million mainly caucasion, middle class folks show up in Washington and all they can talk about is "racism" and how hand-wringing terrible the signs that say "Bury Healthcare with Kennedy" are....it's a joke...but nobody is laughing.

I don't think hate is the singular definition of the right wing cause, but along with fear, angst, and being poor losers, is a part of it.

I hate to be the one to break it to you ducknwork, but some of the posts here made by those on the right are extremely hateful.

I have been accused of being a Bush hater/basher, but trully I only found him a little insipid. I don't recall a level of hate for Bush being portrayed here that ever approached the level now being directed at Obama, but there was no special forum for it at the time.

Last edited by JDogger; 09-15-2009 at 01:02 PM.

One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

I don't think hate is the singular definition of the right wing cause, but along with fear, angst, and being poor losers, is a part of it.

I hate to be the one to break it to you ducknwork, but some of the posts here made by those on the right are extremely hateful.

I have been accused of being a Bush hater/basher, but trully I only found him a little insipid. I don't recall a level of hate for Bush being portrayed here that ever approached the level now being directed at Obama, but there was no special forum for it at the time.

Dogger....you're entirely typical of the left who think anyone disagreeing with a liberals opinion is racist or hate-mongering. The liberal simply can't understand how anyone can possibly look at life differently than liberals. Liberals find ANYBODY and EVERYBODYnot agreeing with their worldview as insipid.

That is why most lefties/liberals are not capable of an objective discussion. They don't want to be confused with the facts.

Then there is the time-honored liberal tradition of character assasination for anyone that opposes them. Hell, they even feed on their own if they deem them not lefist/liberal enough.